I A. P. French "Matter and Radiation: The Inertia of Energy"

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading A. P. French's book: "Special Relativity". Currently I am focused on the section: "Matter and Radiation: The Inertia of Energy."

Under the heading: "Matter and Radiation: The Inertia of Energy", French writes the following:

French ...Matter & Radiation ... P16.png

French ...Matter & Radiation ... P17  ... png.png




In the above text by Young we read the following:

" ... ... But this being an isolated system, we are reluctant to believe that the center of mass in the box plus its contents have moved. We therefore postulate that the radiation has carried with it the equivalent of a mass m , such that

mL + M(delta)x = 0 ... ... ... 1-7

... ... "


Can someone please explain how Young formulates equation 1-7 ... how does he arrive at this equation?

Peter
 

Attachments

  • French ...Matter & Radiation ... P16.png
    French ...Matter & Radiation ... P16.png
    30.4 KB · Views: 66
Physics news on Phys.org
What specifically is not clear? Once you get the idea that light has momentum and that the centre of mass should not move, the kinematics are quite straightforward, are they not?
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
1-7 is just requiring that the center of mass doesn't move. A mass ##m## has moved one distance and a mass ##M## has moved another, but ##\sum m_ix_i## has not changed.

Note that this argument is slightly handwaving because the light pulse moves ##L-\Delta x##, so he's quietly neglected a term like ##m\Delta x## as being very small.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
PeroK said:
What specifically is not clear? Once you get the idea that light has momentum and that the centre of mass should not move, the kinematics are quite straightforward, are they not?

Well, I was having some difficulty proving 1-7 ... BUT ... I note that Young writes that 1-7 is a postulate or assumption ... so we do not have to prove it ... and ... if you assume 1-7 to be true then 1-8 follows by simple algebra ...

Peter
 
Ibix said:
1-7 is just requiring that the center of mass doesn't move. A mass ##m## has moved one distance and a mass ##M## has moved another, but ##\sum m_ix_i## has not changed.

Note that this argument is slightly handwaving because the light pulse moves ##L-\Delta x##, so he's quietly neglected a term like ##m\Delta x## as being very small.

I note that Young writes that 1-7 is a postulate or assumption ... so we do not have to prove it ... and ... if you assume 1-7 to be true then 1-8 follows by simple algebra ...

Thanks again for your help ...

Peter
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top