Relativistic version of Newton's second law with parallel force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the relativistic version of Newton's second law, specifically showing that F=γ³ma when force is parallel to velocity. The user starts with the equation F=dp/dt and momentum p=γmv, applying the product rule for differentiation. After correcting an error in the derivative of γ, they derive dp/dt as γma[γ²(v/c)²+1]. The conclusion is reached that (v/c)² equals 1-1/γ², allowing the simplification to F=γ³ma. The user expresses gratitude for assistance in resolving the problem.
MasterNewbie
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


"Given F=dp/dt. If the force is parallel to velocity show that F=γ3ma."


Homework Equations


F=dp/dt and p=γmv


The Attempt at a Solution


Since the force is the first derivative of the momentum with respect to time, and γ and v both vary with time since there is a net force causing both quantities to change, take the derivative of p using multiplication rule: dp/dt = m[γ'v+γa] γ'=γ3*v/c2 so this would change dp/dt to dp/dt = m[γ3(v/c)2+γa] After this I can't think of anywhere to go that could simplify this to the desired equation F=γ3ma.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
are you sure about \gamma and its derivative? there must be something wrong about it
 
Yeah, I did the derivative wrong, I forgot to do chain rule for the v2 so the derivative of γ would be γ3*va/c2

So then dp/dt = γma[γ2(v/c)2+1]. Assuming the math I did was right the only way I could get what I'm looking for is if (v/c)2 is equal to 1-1/γ2 so when you distribute you'd get γ2-1+1, then it would give dp/dt = F = γ3ma what I'm looking for.

I'll have to mess around with this.

[edit]
Coincidentally (v/c)2 does equal what it needs to equal to simplify to what the equation needs to be.

Thank you a lot Pull :)
[/edit]
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top